path: root/doc/rfc/rfc9133.txt

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                      K. Nishizuka
Request for Comments: 9133                            NTT Communications
Category: Standards Track                                   M. Boucadair
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                   Orange
                                                              T. Reddy.K
                                                                  Akamai
                                                               T. Nagata
                                                                 Lepidum
                                                          September 2021


  Controlling Filtering Rules Using Distributed Denial-of-Service Open
                 Threat Signaling (DOTS) Signal Channel

Abstract

   This document specifies an extension to the Distributed Denial-of-
   Service Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) signal channel protocol so that
   DOTS clients can control their filtering rules when an attack
   mitigation is active.

   Particularly, this extension allows a DOTS client to activate or
   deactivate existing filtering rules during a Distributed Denial-of-
   Service (DDoS) attack.  The characterization of these filtering rules
   is conveyed by a DOTS client during an 'idle' time (i.e., no
   mitigation is active) by means of the DOTS data channel protocol.

Status of This Memo

   This is an Internet Standards Track document.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9133.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction
     1.1.  The Problem
     1.2.  Controlling Filtering Rules Using DOTS Signal Channel
   2.  Terminology
   3.  Controlling Filtering Rules of a DOTS Client
     3.1.  Binding DOTS Data and Signal Channels
     3.2.  DOTS Signal Channel Extension
       3.2.1.  Parameters and Behaviors
       3.2.2.  DOTS Signal Filtering Control Module
         3.2.2.1.  Tree Structure
         3.2.2.2.  YANG Module
   4.  Some Examples
     4.1.  Conflict Handling
     4.2.  On-Demand Activation of an Accept-List Filter
     4.3.  DOTS Servers/Mitigators Lacking Capacity
   5.  IANA Considerations
     5.1.  DOTS Signal Channel CBOR Key Values Subregistry
     5.2.  A New YANG Module
   6.  Security Considerations
   7.  References
     7.1.  Normative References
     7.2.  Informative References
   Acknowledgements
   Authors' Addresses

1.  Introduction

1.1.  The Problem

   In the Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat Signaling (DOTS)
   architecture [RFC8811], DOTS clients and servers communicate using
   both a signal channel protocol [RFC9132] and a data channel protocol
   [RFC8783].

   The DOTS data channel protocol [RFC8783] is used for bulk data
   exchange between DOTS agents to improve the coordination of parties
   involved in the response to a Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS)
   attack.  Filter management, which is one of the tasks of the DOTS
   data channel protocol, enables a DOTS client to retrieve the
   filtering capabilities of a DOTS server and to manage filtering
   rules.  Typically, these filtering rules are used for dropping or
   rate-limiting unwanted traffic, and permitting accept-listed traffic.

   The DOTS signal channel protocol [RFC9132] is designed to be
   resilient under extremely hostile network conditions and provides
   continued contact between DOTS agents even as DDoS attack traffic
   saturates the link.  The DOTS signal channel can be established
   between two DOTS agents prior to or during an attack.  At any time,
   the DOTS client may send mitigation requests (as per Section 4.4 of
   [RFC9132]) to a DOTS server over the active signal channel.  While
   mitigation is active, the DOTS server periodically sends status
   messages to the DOTS client, including basic mitigation feedback
   details.  In case of a massive DDoS attack that saturates the
   incoming link(s) to the DOTS client, all traffic from the DOTS server
   to the DOTS client will likely be dropped.  However, the DOTS server
   may still receive DOTS messages sent from the DOTS client over the
   signaling channel thanks to the heartbeat requests keeping the
   channel active (as described in Section 4.7 of [RFC9132]).

   Unlike the DOTS signal channel protocol, the DOTS data channel
   protocol is not expected to deal with attack conditions.  As such, an
   issue that might be encountered in some deployments is when filters
   installed by means of the DOTS data channel protocol may not function
   as expected during DDoS attacks or, worse, exacerbate an ongoing DDoS
   attack.  In such conditions, the DOTS data channel protocol cannot be
   used to change these filters, which may complicate DDoS mitigation
   operations [INTEROP].

   A typical case is a conflict between filtering rules installed by a
   DOTS client and the mitigation actions of a DDoS mitigator.
   Consider, for instance, a DOTS client that configures during 'idle'
   time (i.e., no mitigation is active) some filtering rules using the
   DOTS data channel protocol to permit traffic from accept-listed
   sources.  However, during a volumetric DDoS attack, the DDoS
   mitigator identifies the source addresses/prefixes in the accept-
   listed filtering rules are attacking the target.  For example, an
   attacker can spoof the IP addresses of accept-listed sources to
   generate attack traffic, or the attacker can compromise the accept-
   listed sources and program them to launch a DDoS attack.

   [RFC9132] is designed so that the DDoS server notifies the above
   conflict to the DOTS client (that is, the 'conflict-cause' parameter
   is set to 2 (conflict-with-acceptlist)), but the DOTS client may not
   be able to withdraw the accept-list rules during the attack period
   due to the high-volume attack traffic saturating the inbound link to
   the DOTS client domain.  In other words, the DOTS client cannot use
   the DOTS data channel protocol to withdraw the accept-list filters
   when a DDoS attack is in progress.

1.2.  Controlling Filtering Rules Using DOTS Signal Channel

   This specification addresses the problems discussed in Section 1.1 by
   adding a capability for managing filtering rules using the DOTS
   signal channel protocol, which enables a DOTS client to request the
   activation (or deactivation) of filtering rules during a DDoS attack.
   Note that creating these filtering rules is still the responsibility
   of the DOTS data channel [RFC8783].

   The DOTS signal channel protocol is designed to enable a DOTS client
   to contact a DOTS server for help even under severe network
   congestion conditions.  Therefore, extending the DOTS signal channel
   protocol to manage the filtering rules during an attack will enhance
   the protection capability offered by DOTS protocols.

      |  Note: The experiment at the IETF 103 hackathon [INTEROP] showed
      |  that even when the inbound link is saturated by DDoS attack
      |  traffic, the DOTS client can signal mitigation requests using
      |  the DOTS signal channel over the saturated link.

   Conflicts that are induced by filters installed by other DOTS clients
   of the same domain are not discussed in this specification.

   An augmentation to the DOTS signal channel YANG module is defined in
   Section 3.2.2.

   Sample examples are provided in Section 4, in particular:

   *  Section 4.1 illustrates how the filter control extension is used
      when conflicts with Access Control Lists (ACLs) are detected and
      reported by a DOTS server.

   *  Section 4.2 shows how a DOTS client can instruct a DOTS server to
      safely forward some specific traffic in 'attack' time.

   *  Section 4.3 shows how a DOTS client can react if the DDoS traffic
      is still being forwarded to the DOTS client domain even if
      mitigation requests were sent to a DOTS server.

   The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) encoding of YANG-modeled data
   [RFC7951] is used to illustrate the examples.

2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

   The reader should be familiar with the terms defined in [RFC8612].

   The terminology for describing YANG modules is defined in [RFC7950].
   The meaning of the symbols in the tree diagram is defined in
   [RFC8340] and [RFC8791].

3.  Controlling Filtering Rules of a DOTS Client

3.1.  Binding DOTS Data and Signal Channels

   The filtering rules eventually managed using the DOTS signal channel
   protocol are created a priori by the same DOTS client using the DOTS
   data channel protocol.  Managing conflicts with filters installed by
   other DOTS clients of the same domain is out of scope.

   As discussed in Section 4.4.1 of [RFC9132], a DOTS client must use
   the same 'cuid' for both the DOTS signal and data channels.  This
   requirement is meant to facilitate binding DOTS channels used by the
   same DOTS client.

   The DOTS signal and data channels from a DOTS client may or may not
   use the same DOTS server.  Nevertheless, the scope of the mitigation
   request, alias, and filtering rules are not restricted to the DOTS
   server but to the DOTS server domain.  To that aim, DOTS servers
   within a domain are assumed to have a mechanism to coordinate the
   mitigation requests, aliases, and filtering rules to coordinate their
   decisions for better mitigation operation efficiency.  The exact
   details about such a mechanism is out of the scope of this document.

   A filtering rule controlled by the DOTS signal channel is identified
   by its ACL name (Section 4.3 of [RFC8783]).  Note that an ACL name
   unambiguously identifies an ACL bound to a DOTS client, but the same
   name may be used by distinct DOTS clients.

   The activation or deactivation of an ACL by the DOTS signal channel
   overrides the 'activation-type' (defined in Section 4.3 of [RFC8783])
   a priori conveyed with the filtering rules using the DOTS data
   channel protocol.

   Once the attack is mitigated, the DOTS client may use the data
   channel to control the 'activation-type' (e.g., revert to a default
   value) of some of the filtering rules controlled by the DOTS signal
   channel or delete some of these filters.  This behavior is deployment
   specific.

3.2.  DOTS Signal Channel Extension

3.2.1.  Parameters and Behaviors

   This specification extends the mitigation request defined in
   Section 4.4.1 of [RFC9132] to convey the intended control of
   configured filtering rules.  Concretely, the DOTS client conveys the
   'acl-list' attribute with the following sub-attributes in the Concise
   Binary Object Representation (CBOR) body of a mitigation request (see
   the YANG structure in Section 3.2.2.1):

   acl-name:  A name of an access list defined using the DOTS data
      channel (Section 4.3 of [RFC8783]) that is associated with the
      DOTS client.

      As a reminder, an ACL is an ordered list of Access Control Entries
      (ACEs).  Each ACE has a list of match criteria and a list of
      actions [RFC8783].  The list of configured ACLs can be retrieved
      using the DOTS data channel during 'idle' time.

      This is a mandatory attribute when 'acl-list' is included.

   activation-type:  An attribute indicating the activation type of an
      ACL overriding the existing 'activation-type' installed by the
      DOTS client using the DOTS data channel.

      As a reminder, this attribute can be set to 'deactivate',
      'immediate', or 'activate-when-mitigating' as defined in
      [RFC8783].

      Note that both 'immediate' and 'activate-when-mitigating' have an
      immediate effect when a mitigation request is being processed by
      the DOTS server.

      This is an optional attribute.

   By default, ACL-related operations are achieved using the DOTS data
   channel protocol when no attack is ongoing.  DOTS clients MUST NOT
   use the filtering control over the DOTS signal channel in 'idle'
   time; such requests MUST be discarded by DOTS servers with 4.00 (Bad
   Request).

   During an attack time, DOTS clients may include 'acl-list', 'acl-
   name', and 'activation-type' attributes in a mitigation request.
   This request may be the initial mitigation request for a given
   mitigation scope or a new one overriding an existing request.  In
   both cases, a new 'mid' MUST be used.  Nevertheless, it is NOT
   RECOMMENDED to include ACL attributes in an initial mitigation
   request for a given mitigation scope or in a mitigation request
   adjusting the mitigation scope.  This recommendation is meant to
   avoid delaying attack mitigations because of failures to process ACL
   attributes.

   As the attack evolves, DOTS clients can adjust the 'activation-type'
   of an ACL conveyed in a mitigation request or control other filters
   as necessary.  This can be achieved by sending a PUT request with a
   new 'mid' value.

   It is RECOMMENDED for a DOTS client to subscribe to asynchronous
   notifications of the attack mitigation, as detailed in
   Section 4.4.2.1 of [RFC9132].  If not, the polling mechanism in
   Section 4.4.2.2 of [RFC9132] has to be followed by the DOTS client.

   A DOTS client relies on the information received from the DOTS server
   and/or local information to the DOTS client domain to trigger a
   filter control request.  Only filters that are pertinent for an
   ongoing mitigation should be controlled by a DOTS client using the
   DOTS signal channel.

   'acl-list', 'acl-name', and 'activation-type' are defined as
   comprehension-required parameters.  Following the rules in Section 6
   of [RFC9132], if the DOTS server does not understand the 'acl-list',
   'acl-name', or 'activation-type' attributes, it responds with a 4.00
   (Bad Request) error response code.

   If the DOTS server does not find the ACL name ('acl-name') conveyed
   in the mitigation request for this DOTS client, it MUST respond with
   a 4.04 (Not Found) error response code.

   If the DOTS server finds the ACL name for this DOTS client, and
   assuming the request passed the validation checks in Section 4.4.1 of
   [RFC9132], the DOTS server MUST proceed with the 'activation-type'
   update.  The update is immediately enforced by the DOTS server and
   will be maintained as the new activation type for the ACL name even
   after the termination of the mitigation request.  In addition, the
   DOTS server MUST update the lifetime of the corresponding ACL similar
   to the update when a refresh request is received using the DOTS data
   channel (Section 7.2 of [RFC8783]).  If, for some reason, the DOTS
   server fails to apply the filter update, it MUST respond with a 5.03
   (Service Unavailable) error response code and include the failed ACL
   update in the diagnostic payload of the response (an example is shown
   in Figure 1).  Else, the DOTS server replies with the appropriate
   response code defined in Section 4.4.1 of [RFC9132].

   {
     "ietf-dots-signal-channel:mitigation-scope": {
       "scope": [
         {
           "mid": 123,
           "ietf-dots-signal-control:acl-list": [
             {
               "acl-name": "an-accept-list",
               "activation-type": "deactivate"
             }
           ]
         }
       ]
     }
   }

   Figure 1: Example of a Diagnostic Payload Including Failed ACL Update

   The JSON/YANG mappings for DOTS filter control attributes are shown
   in Table 1.  As a reminder, the mapping for 'acl-name' is defined in
   Table 5 of [RFC9132].

   +===================+=============+======+=================+========+
   | Parameter Name    | YANG Type   | CBOR | CBOR Major Type | JSON   |
   |                   |             | Key  | & Information   | Type   |
   +===================+=============+======+=================+========+
   | activation-type   | enumeration | 52   | 0 unsigned      | String |
   +-------------------+-------------+------+-----------------+--------+
   | ietf-dots-        | list        | 53   | 4 array         | Array  |
   | signal-           |             |      |                 |        |
   | control:acl-list  |             |      |                 |        |
   +-------------------+-------------+------+-----------------+--------+
   | acl-name          | leafref     | 23   | 3 text string   | String |
   +-------------------+-------------+------+-----------------+--------+

      Table 1: JSON/YANG Mapping to CBOR for Filter Control Attributes

   If the DOTS client receives a 5.03 (Service Unavailable) with a
   diagnostic payload indicating a failed ACL update as a response to an
   initial mitigation or a mitigation with adjusted scope, the DOTS
   client MUST immediately send a new request that repeats all the
   parameters as sent in the failed mitigation request but without
   including the ACL attributes.  After the expiry of Max-Age returned
   in the 5.03 (Service Unavailable) response, the DOTS client retries
   with a new mitigation request (i.e., a new 'mid') that repeats all
   the parameters as sent in the failed mitigation request (i.e., the
   one including the ACL attributes).

   If, during an active mitigation, the 'activation-type' is changed at
   the DOTS server (e.g., as a result of an external action) for an ACL
   bound to a DOTS client, the DOTS server notifies that DOTS client of
   the change by including the corresponding ACL parameters in an
   asynchronous notification (the DOTS client is observing the active
   mitigation) or in a response to a polling request (Section 4.4.2.2 of
   [RFC9132]).

   If the DOTS signal and data channels of a DOTS client are not
   established with the same DOTS server of a DOTS server domain, the
   above request processing operations are undertaken using the
   coordination mechanism discussed in Section 3.1.

   This specification does not require any modification to the efficacy
   update and the withdrawal procedures defined in [RFC9132].  In
   particular, ACL-related clauses are not included in a PUT request
   used to send an efficacy update and DELETE requests.

3.2.2.  DOTS Signal Filtering Control Module

3.2.2.1.  Tree Structure

   This document augments the "ietf-dots-signal-channel" YANG module
   defined in [RFC9132] for managing filtering rules.

   This document defines the YANG module "ietf-dots-signal-control",
   which has the following tree structure:

   module: ietf-dots-signal-control
    augment-structure /dots-signal:dots-signal/dots-signal:message-type
                      /dots-signal:mitigation-scope/dots-signal:scope:
      +-- acl-list* [acl-name]
         +-- acl-name
         |       -> /data-channel:dots-data/dots-client/acls/acl/name
         +-- activation-type?   data-channel:activation-type

3.2.2.2.  YANG Module

   This YANG module is not intended to be used via NETCONF/RESTCONF for
   DOTS server management purposes; such a module is out of the scope of
   this document.  It serves only to provide a data model and encoding,
   but not a management data model.

   This module uses types defined in [RFC8783].

   <CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-dots-signal-control@2021-09-02.yang"
   module ietf-dots-signal-control {
     yang-version 1.1;
     namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-dots-signal-control";
     prefix dots-control;

     import ietf-dots-signal-channel {
       prefix dots-signal;
       reference
         "RFC 9132: Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat
                    Signaling (DOTS) Signal Channel Specification";
     }


     import ietf-yang-structure-ext {
       prefix sx;
       reference
         "RFC 8791: YANG Data Structure Extensions";
     }

     import ietf-dots-data-channel {
       prefix data-channel;
       reference
         "RFC 8783: Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat
                    Signaling (DOTS) Data Channel Specification";
     }

     organization
       "IETF DDoS Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) Working Group";
     contact
       "WG Web:   <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dots/>
        WG List:  <mailto:dots@ietf.org>

        Author:  Kaname Nishizuka
                 <mailto:kaname@nttv6.jp>

        Author:  Mohamed Boucadair
                 <mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>

        Author:  Tirumaleswar Reddy.K
                 <mailto:kondtir@gmail.com>

        Author:  Takahiko Nagata
                 <mailto:nagata@lepidum.co.jp>";

     description
       "This module contains YANG definition for the signaling
        messages exchanged between a DOTS client and a DOTS server
        to control, by means of the DOTS signal channel, filtering
        rules configured using the DOTS data channel.

        Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as
        authors of the code.  All rights reserved.

        Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or
        without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject
        to the license terms contained in, the Simplified BSD License
        set forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions
        Relating to IETF Documents
        (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).

        This version of this YANG module is part of RFC 9133; see
        the RFC itself for full legal notices.";

     revision 2021-09-02 {
       description
         "Initial revision.";
       reference
         "RFC 9133: Controlling Filtering Rules Using Distributed
                    Denial-of-Service Open Threat Signaling (DOTS)
                    Signal Channel";
     }

     sx:augment-structure "/dots-signal:dots-signal"
                        + "/dots-signal:message-type"
                        + "/dots-signal:mitigation-scope"
                        + "/dots-signal:scope" {

       description
         "ACL name and activation type.";

       list acl-list {
         key "acl-name";
         description
           "List of ACLs as defined using the DOTS data
            channel. ACLs bound to a DOTS client are uniquely
            identified by a name.";
         leaf acl-name {
           type leafref {
             path "/data-channel:dots-data/data-channel:dots-client"
                + "/data-channel:acls/data-channel:acl"
                + "/data-channel:name";
           }
           description
             "Reference to the ACL name bound to a DOTS client.";
         }
         leaf activation-type {
           type data-channel:activation-type;
           default "activate-when-mitigating";
           description
             "Sets the activation type of an ACL.";
         }
       }
     }
   }
   <CODE ENDS>

4.  Some Examples

   This section provides some examples to illustrate the behavior
   specified in Section 3.2.1.  These examples are provided for
   illustration purposes; they should not be considered as deployment
   recommendations.

4.1.  Conflict Handling

   Let's consider a DOTS client that contacts its DOTS server during
   'idle' time to install an accept-list allowing for UDP traffic issued
   from 2001:db8:1234::/48 with a destination port number 443 to be
   forwarded to 2001:db8:6401::2/127.  It does so by sending, for
   example, a PUT request as shown in Figure 2.

   PUT /restconf/data/ietf-dots-data-channel:dots-data\
       /dots-client=paL8p4Zqo4SLv64TLPXrxA/acls\
       /acl=an-accept-list HTTP/1.1
   Host: example.com
   Content-Type: application/yang-data+json

   {
     "ietf-dots-data-channel:acls": {
       "acl": [
         {
           "name": "an-accept-list",
           "type": "ipv6-acl-type",
           "activation-type": "activate-when-mitigating",
           "aces": {
             "ace": [
               {
                 "name": "test-ace-ipv6-udp",
                 "matches": {
                   "ipv6": {
                     "destination-ipv6-network": "2001:db8:6401::2/127",
                     "source-ipv6-network": "2001:db8:1234::/48"
                   },
                   "udp": {
                     "destination-port-range-or-operator": {
                       "operator": "eq",
                       "port": 443
                     }
                   }
                 },
                 "actions": {
                   "forwarding": "accept"
                 }
               }
             ]
           }
         }
       ]
     }
   }

           Figure 2: DOTS Data Channel Request to Create a Filter

   Sometime later, consider that a DDoS attack is detected by the DOTS
   client on 2001:db8:6401::2/127.  Consequently, the DOTS client sends
   a mitigation request to its DOTS server as shown in Figure 3.

   Header: PUT (Code=0.03)
   Uri-Path: ".well-known"
   Uri-Path: "dots"
   Uri-Path: "mitigate"
   Uri-Path: "cuid=paL8p4Zqo4SLv64TLPXrxA"
   Uri-Path: "mid=123"
   Content-Format: "application/dots+cbor"

   {
     "ietf-dots-signal-channel:mitigation-scope": {
       "scope": [
         {
           "target-prefix": [
             "2001:db8:6401::2/127"
           ],
           "target-protocol": [
             17
           ],
           "lifetime": 3600
         }
       ]
     }
   }

              Figure 3: DOTS Signal Channel Mitigation Request

   The DOTS server immediately accepts the request by replying with 2.01
   (Created) (Figure 4 depicts the message body of the response).

   {
     "ietf-dots-signal-channel:mitigation-scope": {
       "scope": [
         {
           "mid": 123,
           "lifetime": 3600
         }
       ]
     }
   }

                  Figure 4: Status Response (Message Body)

   Assuming the DOTS client subscribed to asynchronous notifications,
   when the DOTS server concludes that some of the attack sources belong
   to 2001:db8:1234::/48, it sends a notification message with 'status'
   code set to 1 (attack-mitigation-in-progress) and 'conflict-cause'
   set to 2 (conflict-with-acceptlist) to the DOTS client to indicate
   that this mitigation request is in progress, but a conflict is
   detected.

   Upon receipt of the notification message from the DOTS server, the
   DOTS client sends a PUT request to deactivate the "an-accept-list"
   ACL as shown in Figure 5.

   The DOTS client can also decide to send a PUT request to deactivate
   the "an-accept-list" ACL if suspect traffic is received from an
   accept-listed source (2001:db8:1234::/48).  The structure of that PUT
   is the same as the one shown in Figure 5.

   Header: PUT (Code=0.03)
   Uri-Path: ".well-known"
   Uri-Path: "dots"
   Uri-Path: "mitigate"
   Uri-Path: "cuid=paL8p4Zqo4SLv64TLPXrxA"
   Uri-Path: "mid=124"
   Content-Format: "application/dots+cbor"

   {
     "ietf-dots-signal-channel:mitigation-scope": {
       "scope": [
         {
           "target-prefix": [
             "2001:db8:6401::2/127"
           ],
           "target-protocol": [
             17
           ],
           "ietf-dots-signal-control:acl-list": [
             {
               "acl-name": "an-accept-list",
               "activation-type": "deactivate"
             }
           ],
           "lifetime": 3600
         }
       ]
     }
   }

            Figure 5: PUT for Deactivating a Conflicting Filter

   Then, the DOTS server deactivates the "an-accept-list" ACL and
   replies with a 2.04 (Changed) response to the DOTS client to confirm
   the successful operation.  The message body is similar to the one
   depicted in Figure 4.

   Once the attack is mitigated, the DOTS client may use the data
   channel to retrieve its ACLs maintained by the DOTS server.  As shown
   in Figure 6, the activation type is set to 'deactivate' as set by the
   DOTS signal channel (Figure 5) instead of the type initially set
   using the DOTS data channel (Figure 2).

   {
     "ietf-dots-data-channel:acls": {
       "acl": [
         {
           "name": "an-accept-list",
           "type": "ipv6-acl-type",
           "activation-type": "deactivate",
           "pending-lifetime": 10021,
           "aces": {
             "ace": [
               {
                 "name": "test-ace-ipv6-udp",
                 "matches": {
                   "ipv6": {
                     "destination-ipv6-network": "2001:db8:6401::2/127",
                     "source-ipv6-network": "2001:db8:1234::/48"
                   },
                   "udp": {
                     "destination-port-range-or-operator": {
                       "operator": "eq",
                       "port": 443
                     }
                   }
                 },
                 "actions": {
                   "forwarding": "accept"
                 }
               }
             ]
           }
         }
       ]
     }
   }

         Figure 6: DOTS Data Channel GET Response after Mitigation
                               (Message Body)

4.2.  On-Demand Activation of an Accept-List Filter

   Let's consider a DOTS client that contacts its DOTS server during
   'idle' time to install an accept-list allowing for UDP traffic issued
   from 2001:db8:1234::/48 to be forwarded to 2001:db8:6401::2/127.  It
   does so by sending, for example, a PUT request shown in Figure 7.
   The DOTS server installs this filter with a "deactivated" state.

   PUT /restconf/data/ietf-dots-data-channel:dots-data\
       /dots-client=ioiuLoZqo4SLv64TLPXrxA/acls\
       /acl=my-accept-list HTTP/1.1
   Host: example.com
   Content-Type: application/yang-data+json

   {
     "ietf-dots-data-channel:acls": {
       "acl": [
         {
           "name": "my-accept-list",
           "type": "ipv6-acl-type",
           "activation-type": "deactivate",
           "aces": {
             "ace": [
               {
                 "name": "an-ace",
                 "matches": {
                   "ipv6": {
                     "destination-ipv6-network": "2001:db8:6401::2/127",
                     "source-ipv6-network": "2001:db8:1234::/48",
                     "protocol": 17
                   }
                 },
                 "actions": {
                   "forwarding": "accept"
                 }
               }
             ]
           }
         }
       ]
     }
   }

    Figure 7: DOTS Data Channel Request to Create an Accept-List Filter

   Sometime later, consider that a UDP DDoS attack is detected by the
   DOTS client on 2001:db8:6401::2/127 but the DOTS client wants to let
   the traffic from 2001:db8:1234::/48 be accept-listed to the DOTS
   client domain.  Consequently, the DOTS client sends a mitigation
   request to its DOTS server as shown in Figure 8.

   Header: PUT (Code=0.03)
   Uri-Path: ".well-known"
   Uri-Path: "dots"
   Uri-Path: "mitigate"
   Uri-Path: "cuid=ioiuLoZqo4SLv64TLPXrxA"
   Uri-Path: "mid=4879"
   Content-Format: "application/dots+cbor"

   {
     "ietf-dots-signal-channel:mitigation-scope": {
       "scope": [
         {
           "target-prefix": [
             "2001:db8:6401::2/127"
           ],
           "target-protocol": [
             17
           ],
           "ietf-dots-signal-control:acl-list": [
             {
               "acl-name": "my-accept-list",
               "activation-type": "immediate"
             }
           ],
           "lifetime": 3600
         }
       ]
     }
   }

       Figure 8: DOTS Signal Channel Mitigation Request with a Filter
                                  Control

   The DOTS server activates the "my-accept-list" ACL and replies with a
   2.01 (Created) response to the DOTS client to confirm the successful
   operation.

4.3.  DOTS Servers/Mitigators Lacking Capacity

   This section describes a scenario in which a DOTS client activates a
   drop-list or a rate-limit filter during an attack.

   Consider a DOTS client that contacts its DOTS server during 'idle'
   time to install an accept-list that rate-limits all (or a part
   thereof) traffic to be forwarded to 2001:db8:123::/48 as a last
   resort countermeasure whenever required.  Installing the accept-list
   can be done by sending, for example, the PUT request shown in
   Figure 9.  The DOTS server installs this filter with a "deactivated"
   state.

   PUT /restconf/data/ietf-dots-data-channel:dots-data\
       /dots-client=OopPisZqo4SLv64TLPXrxA/acls\
       /acl=my-ratelimit-list HTTP/1.1
   Host: example.com
   Content-Type: application/yang-data+json

   {
     "ietf-dots-data-channel:acls": {
       "acl": [
         {
           "name": "my-ratelimit-list",
           "type": "ipv6-acl-type",
           "activation-type": "deactivate",
           "aces": {
             "ace": [
               {
                 "name": "my-ace",
                 "matches": {
                   "ipv6": {
                     "destination-ipv6-network": "2001:db8:123::/48"
                   }
                 },
                 "actions": {
                   "forwarding": "accept",
                   "rate-limit": "20000.00"
                 }
               }
             ]
           }
         }
       ]
     }
   }

     Figure 9: DOTS Data Channel Request to Create a Rate-Limit Filter

   Consider now that a DDoS attack is detected by the DOTS client on
   2001:db8:123::/48.  Consequently, the DOTS client sends a mitigation
   request to its DOTS server (Figure 10).

   Header: PUT (Code=0.03)
   Uri-Path: ".well-known"
   Uri-Path: "dots"
   Uri-Path: "mitigate"
   Uri-Path: "cuid=OopPisZqo4SLv64TLPXrxA"
   Uri-Path: "mid=85"
   Content-Format: "application/dots+cbor"

   {
     "ietf-dots-signal-channel:mitigation-scope": {
       "scope": [
         {
           "target-prefix": [
             "2001:db8:123::/48"
           ],
           "lifetime": 3600
         }
       ]
     }
   }

             Figure 10: DOTS Signal Channel Mitigation Request

   For some reason (e.g., the DOTS server, or the mitigator, is lacking
   a capability or capacity), the DOTS client is still receiving attack
   traffic, which saturates available links.  To soften the problem, the
   DOTS client decides to activate the filter that rate-limits the
   traffic destined to the DOTS client domain.  To that aim, the DOTS
   client sends the mitigation request to its DOTS server shown in
   Figure 11.

   Header: PUT (Code=0.03)
   Uri-Path: ".well-known"
   Uri-Path: "dots"
   Uri-Path: "mitigate"
   Uri-Path: "cuid=OopPisZqo4SLv64TLPXrxA"
   Uri-Path: "mid=86"
   Content-Format: "application/dots+cbor"

   {
     "ietf-dots-signal-channel:mitigation-scope": {
       "scope": [
         {
           "target-prefix": [
             "2001:db8:123::/48"
           ],
           "ietf-dots-signal-control:acl-list": [
             {
               "acl-name": "my-ratelimit-list",
               "activation-type": "immediate"
             }
           ],
           "lifetime": 3600
         }
       ]
     }
   }

      Figure 11: DOTS Signal Channel Mitigation Request to Activate a
                             Rate-Limit Filter

   Then, the DOTS server activates the "my-ratelimit-list" ACL and
   replies with a 2.04 (Changed) response to the DOTS client to confirm
   the successful operation.

   As the attack mitigation evolves, the DOTS client may decide to
   deactivate the rate-limit policy (e.g., upon receipt of a
   notification status change from 'attack-exceeded-capability' to
   'attack-mitigation-in-progress').  Based on the mitigation status
   conveyed by the DOTS server, the DOTS client can deactivate the rate-
   limit action.  It does so by sending the request shown in Figure 12.

   Header: PUT (Code=0.03)
   Uri-Path: ".well-known"
   Uri-Path: "dots"
   Uri-Path: "mitigate"
   Uri-Path: "cuid=OopPisZqo4SLv64TLPXrxA"
   Uri-Path: "mid=87"
   Content-Format: "application/dots+cbor"

   {
     "ietf-dots-signal-channel:mitigation-scope": {
       "scope": [
         {
           "target-prefix": [
             "2001:db8:123::/48"
           ],
           "ietf-dots-signal-control:acl-list": [
             {
               "acl-name": "my-ratelimit-list",
               "activation-type": "deactivate"
             }
           ],
           "lifetime": 3600
         }
       ]
     }
   }

     Figure 12: DOTS Signal Channel Mitigation Request to Deactivate a
                             Rate-Limit Filter

5.  IANA Considerations

5.1.  DOTS Signal Channel CBOR Key Values Subregistry

   Per this specification, IANA has registered the following parameters
   in the "DOTS Signal Channel CBOR Key Values" subregistry within the
   "Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) Signal
   Channel" registry [Key-Map].

   +==================+==========+=======+============+===============+
   | Parameter Name   | CBOR Key | CBOR  | Change     | Specification |
   |                  | Value    | Major | Controller | Document(s)   |
   |                  |          | Type  |            |               |
   +==================+==========+=======+============+===============+
   | activation-type  | 52       | 0     | IESG       | RFC 9133      |
   +------------------+----------+-------+------------+---------------+
   | ietf-dots-       | 53       | 4     | IESG       | RFC 9133      |
   | signal-          |          |       |            |               |
   | control:acl-list |          |       |            |               |
   +------------------+----------+-------+------------+---------------+

                                 Table 2

5.2.  A New YANG Module

   IANA has registered the following URI in the "ns" subregistry within
   the "IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688]:

   URI:  urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-dots-signal-control
   Registrant Contact:  The IESG.
   XML:  N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace.

   IANA has registered the following YANG module in the "YANG Module
   Names" subregistry [RFC6020] within the "YANG Parameters" registry.

   Name:  ietf-dots-signal-control
   Namespace:  urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-dots-signal-control
   Maintained by IANA:  N
   Prefix:  dots-control
   Reference:  RFC 9133

6.  Security Considerations

   The security considerations for the DOTS signal channel protocol are
   discussed in Section 11 of [RFC9132], while those for the DOTS data
   channel protocol are discussed in Section 10 of [RFC8783].  The
   following discusses the security considerations that are specific to
   the DOTS signal channel extension defined in this document.

   This specification does not allow the creation of new filtering
   rules, which is the responsibility of the DOTS data channel.  DOTS
   client domains should be adequately prepared prior to an attack,
   e.g., by creating filters that will be activated on demand when an
   attack is detected.

   A DOTS client is entitled to access only the resources it creates.
   In particular, a DOTS client can not tweak filtering rules created by
   other DOTS clients of the same DOTS client domain.  As a reminder,
   DOTS servers must associate filtering rules with the DOTS client that
   created these resources.  Failure to ensure such association by a
   DOTS server will have severe impact on DOTS client domains.

   A compromised DOTS client can use the filtering control capability to
   exacerbate an ongoing attack.  Likewise, such a compromised DOTS
   client may abstain from reacting to an ACL conflict notification
   received from the DOTS server during attacks.  These are not new
   attack vectors, but variations of threats discussed in [RFC9132] and
   [RFC8783].  DOTS operators should carefully monitor and audit DOTS
   agents to detect misbehaviors and deter misuses.

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC3688]  Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>.

   [RFC6020]  Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
              the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6020>.

   [RFC7950]  Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",
              RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7950>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8783]  Boucadair, M., Ed. and T. Reddy.K, Ed., "Distributed
              Denial-of-Service Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) Data
              Channel Specification", RFC 8783, DOI 10.17487/RFC8783,
              May 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8783>.

   [RFC8791]  Bierman, A., Björklund, M., and K. Watsen, "YANG Data
              Structure Extensions", RFC 8791, DOI 10.17487/RFC8791,
              June 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8791>.

   [RFC9132]  Boucadair, M., Ed., Shallow, J., and T. Reddy.K,
              "Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat Signaling
              (DOTS) Signal Channel Specification", RFC 9132,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9132, September 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9132>.

7.2.  Informative References

   [INTEROP]  Nishizuka, K., Shallow, J., and L. Xia, "DOTS Interop test
              report, IETF 103 Hackathon", November 2018,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/103/materials/
              slides-103-dots-interop-report-from-ietf-103-hackathon-
              00>.

   [Key-Map]  IANA, "Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat Signaling
              (DOTS) Signal Channel",
              <https://www.iana.org/assignments/dots>.

   [RFC7951]  Lhotka, L., "JSON Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG",
              RFC 7951, DOI 10.17487/RFC7951, August 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7951>.

   [RFC8340]  Bjorklund, M. and L. Berger, Ed., "YANG Tree Diagrams",
              BCP 215, RFC 8340, DOI 10.17487/RFC8340, March 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8340>.

   [RFC8612]  Mortensen, A., Reddy, T., and R. Moskowitz, "DDoS Open
              Threat Signaling (DOTS) Requirements", RFC 8612,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8612, May 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8612>.

   [RFC8811]  Mortensen, A., Ed., Reddy.K, T., Ed., Andreasen, F.,
              Teague, N., and R. Compton, "DDoS Open Threat Signaling
              (DOTS) Architecture", RFC 8811, DOI 10.17487/RFC8811,
              August 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8811>.

Acknowledgements

   Many thanks to Wei Pan, Xia Liang, Jon Shallow, Dan Wing, Christer
   Holmberg, Shawn Emery, Tim Chown, Murray Kucherawy, Roman Danyliw,
   Erik Kline, and Éric Vyncke for the comments.

   Thanks to Benjamin Kaduk for the AD review.

Authors' Addresses

   Kaname Nishizuka
   NTT Communications
   GranPark 16F 3-4-1 Shibaura, Minato-ku, Tokyo
   108-8118
   Japan

   Email: kaname@nttv6.jp


   Mohamed Boucadair
   Orange
   35000 Rennes
   France

   Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com


   Tirumaleswar Reddy.K
   Akamai
   Embassy Golf Link Business Park
   Bangalore 560071
   Karnataka
   India

   Email: kondtir@gmail.com


   Takahiko Nagata
   Lepidum
   Japan

   Email: nagata@lepidum.co.jp